In a recent post, Jerry criticized my use of methodology. In fact, I was unclear and possibly incorrect in my reference to design methodology; it should have just been design.

However, Jerry raises a larger question. He said:

quote:

I know nothing about iterative design, but I do wonder about the increasing use of the word "methodology" when "method" is really what is meant. Methodology would seem to mean "a study of methods."

While I see his point, very often I read about research methodology, and much more infrequently about the research method. In looking into it, I found this usage note from the AHD, which tends to support Jerry's view:

quote:

Usage Note: Methodology can properly refer to the theoretical analysis of the methods appropriate to a field of study or to the body of methods and principles particular to a branch of knowledge. In this sense, one may speak of objections to the methodology of a geographic survey (that is, objections dealing with the appropriateness of the methods used) or of the methodology of modern cognitive psychology (that is, the principles and practices that underlie research in the field). In recent years, however, methodology has been increasingly used as a pretentious substitute for method in scientific and technical contexts, as in The oil company has not yet decided on a methodology for restoring the beaches. People may have taken to this practice by influence of the adjective methodological to mean "pertaining to methods." Methodological may have acquired this meaning because people had already been using the more ordinary adjective methodical to mean "orderly, systematic." But the misuse of methodology obscures an important conceptual distinction between the tools of scientific investigation (properly methods) and the principles that determine how such tools are deployed and interpreted.

They in fact describe what I see all the time as a "pretentious substitute" for the word method.

All right I thought, Jerry is right and most researchers are wrong. However, then I read Wikipedia on the subject, and they took a different perspective, saying:

quote:

Methodology refers to more than a simple set of methods; rather it refers to the rationale and the philosophical assumptions that underlie a particular study. This is why scholarly literature often includes a section on the methodology of the researchers. This section does more than outline the researchers’ methods (as in, “We conducted a survey of 50 people over a two-week period and subjected the results to statistical analysis”, etc.); it might explain what the researchers’ ontological or epistemological views are.

Therefore, I think researchers use methodology not to be pretentious but to describe more comprehensively their design and the theoretical framework of the study.

Thoughts?

quote:

Jerry criticized my use of methodology. ... Thoughts?

Kalleh, here's a thought. I wrote "I am wondering about the increasing use of "methodology" when "method" is meant."

Thus it has been for decades in scholarly papers, theses, et cetera, and it seems to be increasing. It's not, by any means, restricted to YOUR writings.

Thank you for your attention to my confusion.

~~~~ jerry

Jerry, I thought it a very interesting question, and thus pursued it. In no means was my intention to bring attention to your confusion. On the contrary, I was bringing attention to my ignorance of the use of the term that I've used for many years. Thanks for bringing up the subject!

Speaking of methodology...Shu sent me this:

Hiawatha's Lipids
(Hugh Sinclair, MD, VP, Magdalen College, Oxford, England; published in Archives of Medicine, Volume 90, page ii.)

METHODOLOGY

After this review of others
Hiawatha turned to methods
(Methodology, they called it
Making it more scientific – —
Longer words are scientific);
Talked about silicic acid,
Mead’s silicic acid column,
How he trapped the different lipids
As he used to trap the beaver.
Then he pushed them back and forwards —
Countercurrent distribution —
As the frightened hare or reindeer
Runs at random back and forwards.
Then he boiled them up with potash,
Alcoholic potash mixture,
Following the rules established —
Riemenschneider’s “Skillful witchcraft”
So politely called by Mattson
(Personal communication) —
As the dinner in the stewpot
Is boiled by Minnehaha,
So he boiled them up with potash
And the double bonds determined
Spectrophotometrically.
Then he used the latest method,
Gas-chromatographic method
Introduced by James and Martin,
Showing peaks upon the paper
Like the Rockies at the sunset,
Like the mole-hills in the prairies.
Thus he estimated lipids
And he wondered if it mattered,
Wondered secretly about it
With unpublishable wond’rings.

There's obviously much more to it, but it would be far too long to post. I loved the "personal communication" part! Those physicians do have fun, don't they?